Atlanta Conference on Science and Innovation Policy 2011In 2003 the Netherlands introduced 37 consortia to increase the social relevance of its science system. The consortia were given a double objective of scientific excellence and social relevance. The question is raised how consortia from different disciplines have dealt with this potential area of tension in their coordination strategy

de Jong, Stefan P. L.

Wardenaar, Tjerk

English

Scholarly Materials And Research @ Georgia Tech

Organizing Science Society CollaborationsCoordination for Social Relevance and Scientific ExcellenceAbstract Atlanta Conference | Session Research CoordinationTjerk Wardenaar & Stefan P.L. de Jong (2011)Science System Department, Rathenau InstituutThe Hague, The NetherlandsContact: t.wardenaar@rathenau.nl (​mailto:t.wardenaar@rathenau.nl​) IntroductionSocial relevance of scientific research is high on the science policy agenda in countries all over the world. Governments use funding instruments to stimulate scientists to respond to knowledge demands of society. In 2003 the Dutch government decided to implement a consortia approach to increase the social relevance of its science system. A total of 37 research consortia were commissioned to stimulate their thematic field towards more science society collaborations. The coordination task of the consortia however went beyond the internal decision-making on the allocation of the resources (Braun 2003). The consortia were also given the task to attract social actors to co-fund its projects. The consortia thus had to make clear that they were able to be simultaneously excellent in scientific terms (to appeal to scientists) and relevant in societal terms (to appeal to social actors). Although scientific excellence and social relevance are not excluding each other, scientists can perceive such a double requirement as an area of tension (Hessels 2009). The intensity of this perceived area of tension differs substantially between scientific disciplines (Hessels 2009). This paper raises the question whether this difference between disciplines had effect on the coordination approach of the consortia.Theory The consortia are compared in terms of coordination activities. In the first place, we focus on the consortia as funding instruments. As has been argued by Lepori (Lepori forthcoming) funding mechanism can be regarded as coordination modes. In his characterisation of coordination modes in public funding system, Lepori describes consortia in terms of network delegation (see also Braun 2003, Braun and Benninghoff 2003). We will argue however that this concept of consortia is too narrow to describe the coordination activities of the Dutch consortia.We will subsequently expand the notion of coordination with two important activities. In the first place, we will apply Harro van Lente’s concept of expectations (van Lente 1993) to what we call the coordination activity of agenda choice. By formulating research goals and themes, the consortia create expectations about the future of their thematic field. Our empirical findings indicate that these explicit expectations have a coordinating effect on the behaviour of individual participants (both scientists and social actors).Finally, we identify monitoring and evaluation as a third coordination activity. Participants in research programmes often have the tendency to deviate from their research proposals (see e.g. Shove 2003). Another risk for programmes is that individual projects become too independent of each other (Lepori forthcoming). Programmes anticipate on this behaviour by installing monitoring and evaluation schemes. In addition to their direct function, these schemes have a coordination function. By formulating these schemes the consortia create trust among participants that the promised scientific excellence or social relevance will not be threatened by individual behaviour. MethodsThis paper aims to enhance our understanding of consortia as coordination instruments for social relevance and scientific excellence. Moreover, this paper raises the question whether consortia from different academic backgrounds differ in their approach to this double coordination task. To achieve this aim we performed a case study between two consortia from a different academic background, i.e. Climate Changes Spatial Planning (climate sciences) and Next Generation Infrastructure (public administration). The focus is on differences in 1) the culture of publishing, and 2) the involvement of social actors.The cases are compared on the three coordination activities discussed above (see Theory). In the first place, they are compared on their funding structure. The question raised is whether both programmes fit Lepori’s definition of network delegation. In the second place, the programmes are compared on the activity of agenda choice. The question is whether the programmes strategically create expectations about their outcomes to converge activities of (potential) participants. Finally, we compare the formal rules and regulations of the programmes.The information on these coordination activities was obtained by 30 semi-structured interviews. We have interviewed actors that have been involved at different levels of the programmes and at different times. In this way, we were able to reconstruct the role of the different coordination activities at different levels and over time. In the first place, we have interviewed committee members who have evaluated the programme proposals of the consortia. In the second place, we have interviewed consortia directors and government officials of the monitoring ministries. Finally, we interviewed participating scientists and social actors who collaborated in the consortia’s projects.In addition to these interviews we have sent out a questionnaire to get a first understanding of the effects of the coordination activities of the consortia. The questionnaire was sent out to 500 participating scientists. We asked the scientists about the effects of the programmes on their research agendas and research activities. The results of the questionnaire are expected early summer 2011Preliminary resultsFull results of the study are expected early summer 2011.The double coordination task of the Dutch consortia placed them in a potential area of tension between scientific excellence and social relevance. This study compared the approaches to this task of two Dutch consortia. The two consortia differ on two important characteristics, i.e. culture of publishing and the involvement of social actors. Our findings suggest that these differences have indeed effect on the coordination approach. In the first place, it seems that the emphasis on formal rules and the extensive monitoring and evaluation schemes of Climate Changes Spatial Planning are related to culture of publishing. The schemes play a role in creating trust among participating scientists that, notwithstanding the emphasis on social relevance, they will be able to publish their findings in high impact journals. These formal rules play only a minor role in Next Generation Infrastructures.Second, there is an important difference in the expectations that are raised by the programmes. These differences seem to be related to the different role of social actors in the two thematic fields. In the case of Next Generation Infrastructures it is clear who the most important social actors are. The consortium raises expectations which are focused on this group of social actors. In the case of Climate Changes Spatial Planning the relationships between social actors and consortium are less developed. This consortium raises expectations of a more general character to be able to attract different groups of social actors.Finally, the consortia also differ on the allocation of resources. This difference however seems to be unrelated to the scientific discipline of the consortia. Our findings suggest that the different approach to their funding task lies in the composition of the consortia. Climate Changes Spatial Planning is composed of four organisations, whereas Next Generation Infrastructures is composed around one university. Further analysis is needed to assess the influence of this difference on the approach to resource allocation.References Braun, D., 2003. Lasting tensions in research policy-making – a delegation problem. Science and Public Policy 30, 309-321Braun, D., Benninghoff, M., 2003. Policy learning in Swiss research policy – the case of the national centres of competence in research. Research Policy 32, 1849-1863Hessels, L.K., Van Lente, H. Smits, R., 2009. In search of relevance: the changing contract between science and society. Science and Public Policy 36, 387-401Lepori, B., forthcoming. Coordination modes in public funding systems. Research PolicyShove, E. 2003. Principals, agents and research programmes. Science and Public Policy 30, 371-381Van Lente, H. 1993. Promising Technology: The Dynamics of Expectations in Technological Developments. Delft: Eburon

Organizing Science Society Collaborations: Coordination for Social Relevance and Scientific Excellence

https://smartech.gatech.edu/bitstream/1853/42430/1/364-1426-1-PB.doc

Organizing Science Society Collaborations: Coordination for Social Relevance and Scientific Excellence

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Scholarly Materials And Research @ Georgia Tech